[aqm] Design and Implementation of RFC 7928 for ns-3

[Kuhn Nicolas]

Dear all,

For your information, a paper implementing the AQM evaluation guidelines in 
ns-3 has recently been published.
The project is described in [1] and [2]; the source code is available in [3].
Thanks a lot to the authors!

Cheers,

Nico


[1] https://aqm-eval-suite.github.io/

[2] Ankit Deepak, K. S. Shravya, and Mohit P. Tahiliani. 2017. Design and 
Implementation of AQM Evaluation Suite for ns-3. In Proceedings of the Workshop 
on ns-3 (WNS3 '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 87-94. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1145/3067665.3067674

[3] https://github.com/aqm-eval-suite/ns-3-dev-git

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kuhn Nicolas]

All, 

We have pushed an updated version that integrates the suggested changes.

Thanks,

Nico

-Message d'origine-
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
Envoyé : mardi 14 juin 2016 09:13
À : Benoit Claise
Cc : MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-cha...@ietf.org; The 
IESG; draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guideli...@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); 
aqm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11: 
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Yes, already contacted the authors!

Thanks all!

> Am 14.06.2016 um 08:42 schrieb Benoit Claise :
> 
> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 3:41 PM
>> ...
>>> Hi Al,
>>> 
>>> I believe, we agree here. However, I’m not really sure what needs to 
>>> be changed/added in the draft now. The only concrete item I have is 
>>> replacing "application-level“ by "transport-layer payload“. Anything 
>>> else?
>>> 
>>> Mirja
>> [ACM]
>> Thanks, that would resolve the biggest ambiguity for me.
>> Like I said last week, I think we're done (with that change).
> Thank you Al and Mirja.
> I'll clear the DISCUSS on that basis, trusting the AD that the addition will 
> be introduced.
> 
> Regards, Benoit
>> 
>> Al
>> 
>>> 
 Am 10.06.2016 um 19:16 schrieb MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>>> :
 more below, thanks for the clarifications, Mirja!
 Al
 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch]
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:55 PM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Mirja Kühlewind; Benoit Claise
> Cc: w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG; 
> draft-ietf-
>>> aqm-
> eval-guideli...@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); aqm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-
> guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> see below.
> 
> On 10.06.2016 18:41, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
>> Hi, see below,
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:15 AM
>>> To: Benoit Claise; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
>>> Cc: w...@mti-systems.com; aqm-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG; 
>>> draft-ietf-
> aqm-
>>> eval-guideli...@ietf.org; Schulthess Nicolas (F&W); aqm@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on 
>>> draft-ietf-aqm-eval-
>>> guidelines-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>> 
>>> Benoit,
>>> 
>>> waiting for Al. But in the mean time see below.
>>> 
>>> On 10.06.2016 11:57, Benoit Claise wrote:
 Al, assuming that someone would like to register this metric in 
 a
>>> registry
 (RFC6390), are they any grey areas in the performance metric
>>> definitions in
 the draft?
  From what I understand, a point such this one (from Al) is:
 
 Because we are using Goodput, G, I take as given that there
 must be a protocol with retransmission capability.
 Otherwise, further simplification is possible (with dummy
>>> traffic).
>>> 
>>> Not really if you have not retransmission, simply your 
>>> goodout=throughput.
>>> Don't see a problem here.
>> [ACM]
>> Although Goodput == Throughput for UDP, you can make a simpler 
>> measurement, you don't have to check for uniqueness.
> 
> That's the view from someone measuring in the network. But if you 
> do simulations or have a controlled testbed, the easiest things is 
> to measure in the application (and you automatically get the right 
> thing). As we
>>> don't
> know
> what exactly people do in the end, I think it is right to leave 
> this open (and leave it as simple as possible in the description 
> text).
 [ACM]
 Ok, but what layer of the application?  The raw media stream(s)?
 Or everything in the TCP/UDP payload?
 
 In lab benchmarking, it's sometimes about measuring at link speed x 
 number of ports, so every operation makes a difference!
 
> 
 But yes, Fs and G need to be reported on payload
 at the same layer, so the protocol layer chosen is
 an input parameter for this metric.
>>> Yes, it need to be the same layer for all your tests; but the 
>>> goal
>>> is
>>> not be
>>> compatible with other tests. So it's your decision. It's 
>>> guidance
>>> how
>>> you
>>> would test AQMs to decide if you want to deploy them in the 
>>> future
> (or
>>> to
>>> show that your AQM has benefits compared to other AQMs such that
> another
>>> guy
>>> might deploy this in future).
>> [ACM]
>> 
>> The current text mentions the "application layer" but needs to 
>> add
>>> the
> note
>> that 

Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12: (with COMMENT)

[Kuhn Nicolas]

-Message d'origine-
De : Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 14 juin 2016 08:53
À : The IESG
Cc : draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guideli...@ietf.org; w...@mti-systems.com; 
aqm-cha...@ietf.org; w...@mti-systems.com; aqm@ietf.org
Objet : Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12: 
(with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email 
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory 
paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/



--
COMMENT:
--

- Random Early Detection (RED), BLUE, and Proportional Integral controller (PI) 
Would you have references?

[NK] We have added references for these AQMs.
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12.txt

[Kuhn Nicolas]

Greg,

We wanted to keep some weight on the requirements behind each scenario.
Since the draft is informational, in the next version, we will remove the 
normative language and specify that the relevance of the requirements for each 
scenario depends on the deployment scenario.

Regards,

Nico

De : Greg Skinner [mailto:gregskinn...@icloud.com]
Envoyé : mardi 14 juin 2016 03:50
À : Kuhn Nicolas
Cc : aqm@ietf.org; ali...@cooperw.in
Objet : Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12.txt

Nico,

The table in the Summary section (section 13) retains the RFC 2119 normative 
language, but in the sections the table refers to, the normative keywords were 
uncapitalized.  Is this intentional?  This issue was raised by Alissa Cooper a 
few days ago.

Greg

On Jun 10, 2016, at 08:03 AM, Kuhn Nicolas 
mailto:nicolas.k...@cnes.fr>> wrote:
All,

Following the last discussions, please find an updated version of the AQM 
characterization guidelines.
The modifications are shown in the diff attached.

Cheers

Nico

-Message d'origine-
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de 
internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>
Envoyé : vendredi 10 juin 2016 16:59
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org<mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc : aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
Objet : [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling 
of the IETF.

Title : AQM Characterization Guidelines
Authors : Nicolas Kuhn
Preethi Natarajan
Naeem Khademi
David Ros
   Filename : draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12.txt
 Pages : 36
   Date : 2016-06-10

Abstract:
Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
of performance issues. These performance issues can be addressed by
some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
This document describes various criteria for performing
characterizations of AQM schemes, that can be used in lab testing
during development, prior to deployment.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-12


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11.txt

[Kuhn Nicolas]

All,

This updated version integrates some typos correction (based on Greg Skinner's 
comment) and some reformulation in the "goal description section" based on 
Polina's personal email. 

Cheers, 

Nico

-Message d'origine-
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de internet-dra...@ietf.org
Envoyé : lundi 15 février 2016 10:48
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc : aqm@ietf.org
Objet : [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling 
of the IETF.

Title   : AQM Characterization Guidelines
Authors : Nicolas Kuhn
  Preethi Natarajan
  Naeem Khademi
  David Ros
Filename: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11.txt
Pages   : 35
Date: 2016-02-15

Abstract:
   Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
   of performance issues.  These performance issues can be addressed by
   some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
   combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
   This document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
   characterizations of AQM schemes.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

[aqm] TR: I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-10.txt

[Kuhn Nicolas]

Dear all, 

Following Polina's comments on the goals of the document that are not clear, we 
have clarified the link with the standardized algorithms and the goals of the 
document. 
Some highlights on the main changes: 

"
   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 1.1.  Reducing the latency and maximizing the goodput . . . . .   5
 1.2.  Goals of this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

[...]

The goals of this document can thus be summarized as follows:

   o  The present characterization guidelines provide a non-exhaustive
  list of scenario to help ascertain whether an AQM is not only
  better than drop-tail (with BDP-sized buffer), but also safe to
  deploy;

   o  The present characterization guidelines (1) are not bound to a
  particular evaluation toolset and (2) can be used for various
  deployment scenarios;

   o  The present characterization guidelines provide guidance for
  better selecting an AQM for a specific environment; it is not
  required that an AQM proposal is evaluated following these
  guidelines for its standardization.
"

We hope that this clarifies the situation. 
Kind regards,

Nicolas

-Message d'origine-
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de internet-dra...@ietf.org
Envoyé : mardi 2 février 2016 16:10
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc : aqm@ietf.org
Objet : [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-10.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling 
Working Group of the IETF.

Title   : AQM Characterization Guidelines
Authors : Nicolas Kuhn
  Preethi Natarajan
  Naeem Khademi
  David Ros
Filename: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-10.txt
Pages   : 35
Date: 2016-02-02

Abstract:
   Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
   of performance issues.  These performance issues can be addressed by
   some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
   combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
   This document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
   characterizations of AQM schemes.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-10


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

[Kuhn Nicolas]

Dear Polina, all,


1)  The explanation was mostly on why parameters are not specified in the 
document because the words unspecified was in a bold font in your email ; this 
made me think that this was your concern about the document.

2)  I think it is not an issue to have some parameters specified in the 
document.

You do not "have to" write a longer review. Do it  only if you think it is 
necessary and helpful in having a better document :).

As Gorry said at IETF93, "this doc will never be perfect"[1].

Kind regards,

Nicolas

[1] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-aqm

De : Polina Goltsman [mailto:polina.golts...@student.kit.edu]
Envoyé : vendredi 11 décembre 2015 18:00
À : Kuhn Nicolas; Wesley Eddy; aqm@ietf.org
Cc : Bless, Roland (TM)
Objet : Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

Dear Nicolas,

Thank you very much for the explanation, I have however two questions regarding 
your comments:

1) why is the explanation about why are parameters unspecified not present in 
the document?

2) in this case, I assume that the remark about "asymmetric link scenario 
evaluates an AQM mechanism in a more realistic setup;" in section 3.1 and all 
cases where the parameters for capacity and round-trip time ARE present (see 
items 2 and 4 below), should be removed ?

I guess now I have to write a longer review...  :(

Regards,
Polina

On 12/11/2015 03:20 PM, Kuhn Nicolas wrote:
Dear Polina, all,

Thank you for your email and I understand your concerns. I will provide more 
detail answer below for each of your points, but I would like first to clarify 
a general issue.

The scope of this document is to present how to assess the performance of AQMs 
- without focusing on a specific context (3G networks, data-centers, satellite 
networks, home routers, ISP core network) where Bufferbloat may (or may not) 
occur (yet). This is the main reason why this draft does not provide specific 
details on the bottleneck capacities, numbers of flows, or traffic generation. 
Every strict number or specific flow characteristic limits the scope of this 
document that is not only focusing on web traffic latency reduction in home 
routers.

Please see inline for specific answer to your concerns.

Cheers,

Nicolas


De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Polina Goltsman
Envoyé : lundi 7 décembre 2015 13:32
À : Wesley Eddy; aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
Cc : Bless, Roland (TM)
Objet : Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

Dear all,

Apologies for the long delay.

I have review the latest version of the draft. In my opinion the document still 
needs a detailed review about the representation (the text): the structure of 
the document would make more sense if the information in section 2, 3, and 4 
would appear in different order, the document still could use a more consistent 
terminology, and the structure of section 5-12 could be more consistent. I am 
happy to provide the detailed review, but since it is a lot of work, I have 
several concerns about the content of the document, which I would prefer to 
clear first.


NK : we changed the ToC of the draft several times and I think the first 
sections (2, 3 and 4) are quite independent. I do not see a specific need for 
changing their order.
Regarding sections 5-12, we could still add some "Motivation" and "Recommended 
tests" for the section 5 for increasing the consistency. The sections that do 
not need performance evaluations have another organization (Motivation then 
Recommended discussion), but that seems consistent to me. We had several checks 
within the list for the terminology (such as the one done by Gorry), but if you 
spot anything, feel free to send your comments.

The document proposes the evaluation methodology for AQMs which consists of the 
following topology and scenarios:

0. the experiments should be performed on the topology, described in Figure 1 
in Section 3, where the bottleneck between routers L and R is of unspecified 
capacity, which SHOULD include both symmetric and asymmetric, and the buffer 
MAY be set to a BDP. If I understand correctly, it is further RECOMMENDED to 
use a range of input parameters for the evaluated AQM (this may only be 
required if several AQMs are being compared)


NK : The Figure 1 in section 3 MAY be used. The dumbbell topology is useful to 
evaluate the performance of congestion control (such as mentioned in the common 
TCP evaluation suite of the IRTF).

NK: Such as for the different parameters (buffer sizing, bottleneck capacity, 
etc.), we understand that having unspecified parameters may be annoying, but I 
do not see how we can define such parameters for satellite networks, 
data-centers, home gateways, core Internet providers' network, etc. As one 
example, the capacity is (not only) related to the mechanisms from lower 
layers, such as link layer reliability schemes, 

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

[Kuhn Nicolas]

;t understand how any of these metrics can 
be used to  characterize burst absorption.

NK : see previous comment.

4. (section 8) stability, including (a) varying the number of flows on a 
bottleneck of unspecified capacity with unspecified RTT, according to the 
provided formulas, (b) varying network capacity between 10Mbps an 100Mbps for 
one TCP flow (if I understand it correctly)

NK: see previous comment.

5. (section 9) which includes (a) traffic mix of a combination applications, 
including TCP, web-traffic, bi-direction VoIP using unspecified congestion 
control (I am not sure, but I think there are options), CBR of unspecified 
rate, and adaptive video streaming also with unspecified congestion control, 
with one combination required and other left to the tester to decide; and (b) 
bi-directional traffic, which should evaluate the effect on dropping DNS/TCP 
Syn packets* using a specified number of bulk TCP flows using the the 
throughput-delay tradeoff graph; (in both scenarios capacities and RTT are 
unspecified as well)
* I assume that DNS/SYN packets are mentioned in this section by mistake
NK: see previous comment for the rates. The comment on DNS and TCP Syn packets 
have been introduced after Jim's review 
[https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/pS9WlUlK5gExF8Ohu_syUXrNiUk ].
Do you think that a person without a substantial background knowledge on the 
evaluation of AQM schemes can perform this evaluation (resolve all unspecified 
conditions) in a reasonable amount of time?
NK: The unspecified parameters do not require specific knowledge on AQMs - the 
unspecified parameters are (1) the RTT or the capacities, which are related to 
the network underneath; (2) and the characteristics of the traffic generation, 
which is related to the traffic that is run between clients and servers. Thus, 
I think that a person without a substantial background knowledge on the 
evaluation of AQM schemes can perform this evaluation in a reasonable amount of 
time.
In the abstract, the document says that it describes characterization 
guidelines for an AQM proposal, to decide whether it should be adopted by the 
AQM WG. The WG currently has two AQMs (dropping/marking policy) in last call. 
Did someone evaluate these AQMs according to the specified guidelines?
Moreover, it seems to me that the WG is about to conclude. What exactly is the 
purpose of standardizing this document then ?

NK: I am not sure whether the WG is about to conclude and do not have such 
information. The purpose in standardizing this document as INFORMATIVE would be 
to provide guidelines for evaluating AQM for the specific issue of the 
bufferbloat. You may believe that the WG is about to conclude, this draft may 
be useful for other initiative in marking/dropping in routers.
Kind regards,
Nicolas

Regards,
Polina
On 12/01/2015 08:19 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
Thanks for making this update.

I don't think Roland and Polina who had made last call comments had yet had the 
time to check that the changes in the last revision met what they were 
expecting, so I'd like to give them (and anyone else who has comments) a couple 
of weeks to check this revision out, and assuming there are no major issues or 
objections by around 12/15, will plan to end the working group last call, and 
send the document to the area director for publication.



On 11/27/2015 5:50 AM, Kuhn Nicolas wrote:

Dear all,

This updated version integrates:
- modification on the buffer sizes, following some discussion points raised by 
Michael Scharf on the tcpm mailing list [1];
- some nits raised by Greg Skinner.

Kind regards,

Nicolas KUHN

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg09894.html

-Message d'origine-
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de 
internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>
Envoyé : vendredi 27 novembre 2015 11:44
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org<mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc : aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
Objet : [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
  This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet 
Scheduling Working Group of the IETF.

 Title   : AQM Characterization Guidelines
 Authors : Nicolas Kuhn
   Preethi Natarajan
   Naeem Khademi
   David Ros
Filename: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt
Pages   : 35
Date: 2015-11-27

Abstract:
Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
of performance issues.  These performance issues can be addressed by
some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
The IETF Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling workin

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

[Kuhn Nicolas]

Dear all, 

This updated version integrates:
- modification on the buffer sizes, following some discussion points raised by 
Michael Scharf on the tcpm mailing list [1];
- some nits raised by Greg Skinner.

Kind regards, 

Nicolas KUHN

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg09894.html

-Message d'origine-
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de internet-dra...@ietf.org
Envoyé : vendredi 27 novembre 2015 11:44
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc : aqm@ietf.org
Objet : [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling 
Working Group of the IETF.

Title   : AQM Characterization Guidelines
Authors : Nicolas Kuhn
  Preethi Natarajan
  Naeem Khademi
  David Ros
Filename: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt
Pages   : 35
Date: 2015-11-27

Abstract:
   Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
   of performance issues.  These performance issues can be addressed by
   some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
   combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
   The IETF Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling working group
   was formed to standardize AQM schemes that are robust, easily
   implementable, and successfully deployable in today's networks.  This
   document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
   characterizations of AQM proposals.  This document also helps in
   ascertaining whether any given AQM proposal should be taken up for
   standardization by the AQM WG.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] CoDel's control law that determines drop frequency

[Kuhn Nicolas]

All, 

CoDel's issues with high load have also been measured in [1]. 

Cheers, 

Nicolas 

[1] Jarvinen, I.; Kojo, M., "Evaluating CoDel, PIE, and HRED AQM techniques 
with load transients," in Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2014 IEEE 39th 
Conference on , vol., no., pp.159-167, 8-11 Sept. 2014. doi: 
10.1109/LCN.2014.6925768
URL: 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6925768&isnumber=6925725

-Message d'origine-
De : aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Bob Briscoe
Envoyé : mercredi 30 septembre 2015 15:00
À : Polina Goltsman
Cc : AQM IETF list
Objet : Re: [aqm] CoDel's control law that determines drop frequency

Polina,

I think this was it:


I have a set of charts from Rong with many more tests showing CoDel's sluggish 
responsiveness, but I believe the above was the published summary.


Bob

On 30/09/15 10:13, Polina Goltsman wrote:
> Dear Bob,
>
> On 09/30/2015 10:50 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>>
>> Early on, Rong Pan showed that it takes CoDel ages to bring high load 
>> under control. I think this linear increase is the reason.
>
> Is there a link to this ?
>
> Polina
>
> ___
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

-- 

Bob Briscoe   http://bobbriscoe.net/

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm